What we (the US) is much more important than who we owe it to. The US debt is in US dollars. All of these developing countries are not able to issue debt in their local currency. Instead they have to borrow and pay back in someone elseâ(TM)s currency, which is what leads to a problem for the developing country.

I am not arguing the temperature will not rise. The temperature will continue to rise and there will be negative effects. I just don't think they will be catastrophic for me.

How much are you willing to pay to attempt to reduce those negative effects? How much are you willing to force others to pay?

Fear mongering about environmental catastrophes, the extinction of the human race, and ad hominem attacks on those who question the appropriate response to climate change is why there continues to be inaction. In this case, I like inaction (it keeps my energy costs low).

That is a good point. I am not looking for something that is completely known. But I would like to see more of a consensus on the costs/benefits before making major changes to energy policy.

I don't mind making sacrifices in the short term to improve something in the long term. However, in this case I don't think the payoff is worth it. The long term consequences of climate change are unknown. The amount of short term pain required to affect the long term consequences are also unknown. Given the unknowns, I am happy to continue not making sacrifices.

Nothing. Which is the correct thing to do. As you put it, there is a potential environmental catastrophe. The emphasis should be on the word potential. I believe the earth is changing. I believe humans are the main cause for these changes. I believe these changes will have some negative impacts. However, I am not willing to spend a large amount of money or impose taxes on carbon to avoid these unknown negative impacts. I haven't been convinced the money we spend on prevention will be less than the money spent on dealing with the changes.

In the US, the limit for flying is not zero. The limit is 0.04 and 8 hours since your last drink.

That may be true, but the police unions will never let this happen. The NJ law referenced in the article exempts the police from this requirement.

And yet the most common firearm for police officers doesn't have an external safety. Glock pistols have some internal safety's that prevent mechanical failures or dropping it from causing the gun to fire, but there is no external mechanical safety. When you pull the trigger it fires, when you don't pull the trigger it doesn't fire. Exactly the way it should be.

No, this was a contest to see who could improve the algorithm the most. There can be only a single winner. If the contest was to improve the algorithm by x%, then there might be multiple winners. If you start calling everyone a "winner", you just cheapen the experience for the true winner.

That is a very well written post. Unfortinately that is not what happened. But good job bashing Airbus.

The US already uses weapon systems that once they are turned on, make the decision about when to shoot and what direction to shoot. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-RAM There are situations where human beings can not make decisions fast enough. Shooting down incoming artillery is one of those situations.

Laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on sex don't apply to the military. In the US, only guys are required to register for the draft.

It makes it easier to file a flight plan. Instead of calling up a flight service station on the phone and going through the error prone process of giving them my flight plan, I can do it online. I find it to be easier and the government likes it because it is cheaper.

If I am on the jury, then I am one of the citizens who will be deciding the outcome of the case. If I am going to be deciding something, I would like to be able to hear all of the facts. Let me decide how much weight to give each piece of biased information.